market in the same timeframe, that only use petro or gasoline, we are not going to relieve the demand for oil anytime soon. that 20 million barrels a day may per day production and with the freeze on activity in the gulf of mexico still continuing. yes, several permits have been granted since the shutdown of the gulf, the so-called but we haven't resumed deep water drilling. and the deepest reservoirs, the richest basins of oil we have in this country to tap happen to be in this stage in the western gulf of mexico where we're not allowing producers to produce. for regulatory reasons. all the words to the contrary no

withstanding. they are simply not drilling, ladies and gentlemen. because they can't. they're not allowed. we flip-flopped on whether we will or won't open new access. the house of representatives passed the bill. i believe just today requiring a more opening of reserves that are offlimits. the prediction is that bill is dead in the senate and the white house would be to it. so as we decline u.s. production in oil, but we don't change the need for oil, it's why i say we're upside down in this country. last december i predicted five dollar gasoline at a speech in new york city. it was a slow week over the christmas week so someone played that speech. and since then, it's been talked about all over the country with

the experts saying impossible. but the retail price signs in california saying it's here! five dollars is here! and so the issue is, the forecasters have never predicted accurately. i predicted five dollars for a very simple reason. we're not producing enough domestic oil in a country that has more oil in a country than it will ever use. i testified in congress in february that we raise u.s. production back to where it used to be. 10 million barrels a day. 10 million barrels a day equals half, just half of our daily requirement. it would take up to a decade to do that. but other things would happen as we produce more barrels a day,

two more things would happen. one, three million new american jobs. three million! not 3,000, not 300,000, three million new american jobs. nobody in this country has suggested a jobs program that comes anywhere close. the government in desperate need of revenue would get an additional $20 billion in royalties per year. and the american people, who do not like high gas prices for a very good reason, and the reason is our entire system of mobility in this country is predicated on personal mobility, not public mobility. other than a few cities. so three00 million people in this country, some 250 million of those people have virtually no public transportation access that's meaningful.

you don't take that away without consequences. and so they would have lower price gasoline. by virtue of producing more domestic resources. so what is congress doing about it? what's the executive branch doing about it? well, congress is having the food fight that they've been having for the last five years. let's hate the oil companies, let's show the american people that the oil companies are bad for america. the white house is strangling by regulation the ability to produce domestic high deron carbons, whether it's oil, whether it's coal or natural gas. we have a serious upside down problem. what do our friends at opec think about it. what do our friends in the arab world think about this? in some respects this is down right insulting for the u.s. to take this anti-hydra carbon

view. on what basis? it became the largest economy in the world with the most envied life style in the world on the back of high dro carbons. yes, they are finite. yes they have nasty elements. you don't want to see it, touch it, taste it or smell it. you just want to use it in a confined system. when it gets out of the system, things go nasty very quickly. that doesn't make it suddenly offlimits because the economy requires it. it's the lubecation of -- it's the lubrication.

so high prices get a huge adverse reaction from the american people and from their elected officials, understandable. but what's the next step? on the path of our own, ladies and gentlemen, and the heads of opec know this, and the leaders of sovereign arab nations know this, and in a moment i'm coming onto china. they know this and it is just a matter of a few years. where it's not just the high prices that create social adversity in this country, but it's the gas lines. the lines of people circling blocks of real estate, waiting for their chance to get a few gallons because rationing will kick in and will go back to the 1970's experience of five

gallons only. for which you wait hours on odd even days to make your purchase. that's where we're going. on the current path that we're on. because china, unlike the western democracies, is making some hard choices and coming to grips with its future. let me offer a few statistics that i think need to be understood because those statistic will determine the rate by which the west moves into gas lines. over the course of the next decade, based upon the current forecast in china's economic development, china will build five million kilometers of highway. i didn't say 500,000, i said five million. what do you put on highways?

cars and trucks and buses. using hydrocarbons for the most part. they will cover 40 billion space. i didn't say million, i said 40 billion square meters. what do you do with space under roof? you heat it, you light it, you cool it. all of which takes energy. they will build over 50,000 new buildings 30 stories tall or taller. 50,000! they're expecting 150 million tourists a year within the decade. how do they get to china? they don't walk.

they don't bicycle. maybe in china they will walk and bicycle. to see the sights. but they will fly to get there. china knows it needs more energy. china has made decisions about where it's going to get its energy. and here is one of china's tactics that is not reported in the west, but which the western democracies have to know about and it's called the lones to stay oil company program. over the past three years, three years, that's recent, more than $120 billion in loans have been granted to state-owned oil companies for the purpose of oil and gas development, for the purpose of direct contracting the production of that oil to

china. not to the global oil pool for trading, but to china directly. including $10 billion to brazil, $20 billion to venezuela, $25 billion to russia, $16 billion to ghana. ghana just produced first oil in 2011. china is going to ensure to its economy and to its citizen that over the course of the next five years, as consumption grouse from nine million barrels a day to 15 million barrels a day, that it is not short of oil. where do those six million additional barrels come from?

they come out of the existing production of the world but directed towards china. with the loan program. this is a serious issue when the u.s. is bidding for two/thirds of its oil from the foreign trade opportunities and there are six million less barrels available in that pool because china's wrapped it up with contracts, we're not the only ones bidding. lot of countries will be bidding. it will go to the highest priced buyer, won't it? but there won't be enough. because five years on from now ladies and gentlemen, we need 20 million barrels a day to get out of bed in the morning in this country. and producing less now than the path they are on.

when you think about our arab friends, think about how wealth in the world is distributed and is being redistributed. redistributed through the purchase and sale of oil. opec nation's currently at $110 a barrel have over $120 trillion of value in the ground. $120 trillion of value in the ground. compare that to the entire market cap of the new york stock exchange. which includes as you know all the major companies. that equals $45 trillion. 120 versus 45. let's add euronext. $20 trillion.

add london, $4 trillion. add hong kong, $3 trillion. all those western can't list and asian can't list market exchanging add up to 105 trillion value in opec. you see where the value of money, and you see where the transfer of wealth is headed. it's headed to those who have the hydrocarbons and in the united states of america which has more hydrocarbon than it will ever need, the wealth sits in the ground untouched. during the recent round of high prices, the obama administration said basically the same thing that the bush administration said some years ago, three years ago. well, we're talking to our opec

friends to see if they would increase production. it's not a solution for tomorrow. so what's holding us back? we have three problems and then i'll close. we have three problems. the perverse partnership that infects our -- the perverse partisanship is harming america and americans. two, the political time mindset of elected officials who think primarily in two year election cycles cannot come to grips with the long requirements of energy time investment decisions.

i got to get re-elected in order to get to the next election cycle. i will focus on those items that are important to me. that mindset is an inverse proportion to the needs of the energy system of the 21st century. third, we have grown our federal government to the point of dysfunction. when it comes to energy. as you can tell, i'm probably not very popular in washington, d.c. with the kind of statements that i make. but i see them as true statements. and this next one really does offend people. because all over town i ask the same three questions. why do we need 13 cabinet level officers to decide energy policy? we have one department of defense. why the 13 cabinet level officers get to decide energy policy in this country?

which is what they do. from the department of interior to the department of congress, to the department of state, department of energies, department of transportation. energy is spread all over the executive branch. they're not famous in any administration for working together. they each have their congressional charters to do what they do. second question, why do we have 26 congressional committees and subcommittees to manage them? 26? do we really need that many? as we know, the chair and the ranking member is subject to change every two years, depending on what they want to see happen in the congress. why does every federal judge in the country have the ability to make decisions from the bench that affect the energy future of the nation?

they don't understand the case being brought to them, but they can describe the nation from the bench? this is a system this is dysfunctional ladies and gentlemen, it does not work. it's not going to work. we need a solution. the solution i write about draws from american history and what history it draws from suggests that the structure the nation chose, and any western democracy can do this, is to depoliticize the issue by assigning governments responsibility and authority through law to an independent regulatory commission. they could not come to grips with this monetary policy resulting in the bankruptity in 1907 and followed by a second one in 1912. then from 1913 to 2011 with a

few mistakes along the way, the federal reserve has enabled this nation to become the world's largest economy. given what we know, eight presidents, 13 congresses, 26 congressional committees currently and hundreds and hundreds of federal judges currently knowing we can't fix the energy of this nation, how about an independent regulatory commission created by congress with four authorities? what energy from what sources will be part of the american mix? second, what technologies for efficiency will we deploy? thirdly, what environmental protections for land and water and air are necessary given the mix of the energy supply that we decide? and fourth, what about the

regional infrastructure that nation has which need to be dealt with in the 21st century? with the board of governors appointed by the president, all done under law so the institution is indeed democratic. but it can't be lobbied. you can't lobby the fed. wow, imagine! can't lobby the federal energies resources board, as i call it. it could actually be independent. you can't really sue it either. nobody sues the fed. why waste your time? and money? so why would you sue the federal energy resources board? if we call it that? there's a solution there ladies and gentlemen. i think it would set a model for the western democracies to follow. it would enable us to have ongoing, intelligent, productive

conversations with opec, with arab nations, with china, because in a democracy which we all know can be pretty sloppy from time to time, in the process by which we get things done, we can actually get things done. but that's what's needed for the energy future of the united states. if the western democracies go south, i don't think that will be impressive. to what the arab nations are currently wrestling with, which is the role of democracy in their systems, in their countries, in their governments. and i don't think the western democracies want to see the chinese model repeated all over as the model for the world. so this decade, i'll close where i started -- chickens are coming home to roost this decade, ladies and gentlemen. we can't extend these uncertainties. we can't produce what we need to

produce in this decade without energy. and we can't resolve the economic requirements of the western democracies on the path that we're on! we need 21st century energy systems in every country. and those kinds of investments are the kind of huge investments which rejuvenate economies in whatever form of government they have. and i leave you with this thought. it's up to us as citizens to insist upon these decisions being made. thanks for listening. [applause] >> super, thank you john. now, the floor is open for questions. but we have in front of each of you a three by five card and this is proven throughout the years to be more effective in the sense that it avoids people

grandstanding and giving their own little speech and it disciplines individuals to make their questions more pointed and brief. but while they're being written and gathered, i will take the liberty to ask a few. how, these are how questions. how would it affect the energy production picture among major energy suppliers in the arab world and elsewhere, included the united states? and how would it likely affect global energy markets? >> lick quick fied natural gas is in in respects a gift to countries that need energy that do not have adequate energy within their borders. it's transportable, it's affordable, it's clean, it's safe. and it can and will be prolific, which is great news.

so the liquid fied natural gas, coupled with the shale gas has opened up to the world, the entire world. other nations short on hydrocarbon energy. hydrocarbon will remain an affordable type of energy. so i'm a real fan of it in general. i do think we need to be mindful of the environmental risk associated with developmental of hydrolic fracturing and i don't think we have all the answers yet in regards to that. i think we do with respect to liquified natural gas. but it could happen that liquified natural gas can become a security issue if it is not

properly guarded, maintained, and secured. >> what steps would you take in forming it? >> well, it won't happen if we leave the debate to the people inside the beltway in washington, d.c. it just won't. the idea of creating an independent regulatory commission, taking away from the executive branch or judicial branch current authorities, that's not an easy conversation for people who hold those current authorities to have. also not an easy conversation for k street or lobbyist groups to have because it goes against what they stand for. so you have all the antibodies around this concept living in the place where the decision would ultimately be made.

how do we get it done? well, i didn't start citizens for affordable energy just as a hobby. citizens for affordable energy, the foundation that my wife and i founded three years ago exists for the primary purpose of educating all americans, could be applied to all western democracies on the issues of energy and the environment so that an informed lecktor rate in a democracy can know better what choices they have. by talking about these issues in a straight manner without a republican or democratic bias to the discussion, people get to see the cold hard facts of where we are and where we're going. the consequence of that, i believe, is the demand will arise either through the natural intelligence or when we're standing in gas lines, and we're paying seven or eight dollars a

gallon when we can get the five gallons we can get, after hours in the gas line, we'll have plenty of time to discuss the alternative form of government which is the independent regulatory commission. so we would be driven to it by emergency conditions if we're not driven to it because of a simple, rational pragmatic opportunity. >> if you can, please update us on the context and analysis of carbon tax and global warming. how do they fit into all of this? >> i think the, as i describe the issue in my book, rather than tackle global warming, rather than participate in the debate on climate change, my recommendation is let's go to the heart of the issue. let's go to root cause. let's deal with root cause in a

sensible, pragmatic way. let's talk about waste management. because that's what we're dealing with. the waste management of a hydrocarbon product that produces waste. that waste can be solid, as in the case of coal ash. that can be liquid in the form of water con tan nated runoff. and it can be garb shuss, as in the emissions. i find it completely unproductive and therefore unsolveable to focus on climate change and global warming because of the reason of theys. meaning we don't agree, or they don't agree. parties will never agree as we saw in copenhagen because of the various abilities of how people see the issue.

civilized societies have learned how to manage waste pretty well. physical waste, we recycle a lot of it. liquid waste, we treat it. those technologies are available to us. so my approach is to look at every country in the world and say do you want to live in the stench and the mess and the degradation of your sove verne territory? or do you want to clean it up? i think most people would opt to clean it up. that would be handled better as a waste management notion and the sooner the better. and the more technology we apply to it, the faster and the less expensive it will be to clean it up. all across the board.

>> please comment on the gas pricing, tack breaks and sub si dis that were discussed yesterday on capitol hill. well i think they were pretty angry. let's put it in perspective for a moment. i thought the chairman did a pretty good job of describing the problem and the dilemma the nation faces in that the nation doesn't have enough money to pay its bills. that has to be dealt with. i thought the executives were justify bli angry when they basically said why us? why pick on us, my company? and to put that in perspective, if you live in a village of a hundred homes, and the city council decides that it needs more money, and it goes to the home owners of the five largest homes in the city, and say

you're going to have to pay us more money. because you obviously have money because you have this large home. we're not going to go to the other 95 people because they won't like it. they'll be unhappy. so we'll come to you because you're only five of you and you can't stop us. that's the analogy that the five energy executives faced yesterday. why us? we know we have a problem. we know the nation is convoluted in its tax code. but instead of picking on five individual companies who then have to explain to their share holders why they remain a good investment when their cost structure just goes up and they can't do anything about it, and investors say i think i'll invest in someone else that doesn't have to worry about these additional costs. so they're protective of their enterprise as a home owner would be protective of his house.

so what i said during the hearing on a couple of msnbc segments, i kind of go back and forth between the two which makes for an interesting life if nothing else, i said let's talk about the problem in a different way. and i went back to my congressional testimony. why don't we produce three more million barrels a day. that solves the government revenue issue. that's $20 billion a year, not four. isn't 20 a bigger number than four? and let's create three million jobs. and let's lower the price of gasoline. doesn't everybody win in that formula? wouldn't that make some common sense, some economic sense and some social sense? probably, but it doesn't make political sense. that's the problem. because the political sense is all tied up in partnership and the desire to -- and even one of the democratic participants yesterday said i doubt this bill will go anywhere.

so with gas prices they're going to flux wait over the summer at a very high level until some of the affects of the china factor chips in. and by 2012, 2013, we can see a higher plateau because of the scarcity of product, the continuing demand, unless, unless, and this is quite possible we simply go back to recession. we stand handle much higher joblessness in this country. lord knows the turmoil we have today and the bills we can't pay. we need jobs, we need economic value creation, and we need lower gas prices, all three.

>> from another perspective in the sense that here if it reaches five dollars, some murmur that it already has, how much it would be in tokyo tonight, london, brussels and elsewhere tonight. and the implications of those statistical facts in terms of how the united states is becoming competitive internationally in the eyes of friends, partners and allies who look at us and conclude that we have the best arrangement with this commodity access to it and the pricing of it, of any major industrialized country in the world? >> in general, the world pays the basic crude price. now whether you're purchasing brent, which is currently more expensive than west texas intermediate, there are gaps.

high inventories in cushing keep west texas oil prices lower because there's a lot of it sitting there, can't move. a lot of the east coast is getting its gasoline from europe. which drives the price higher because it's not just supplying europe, it's also supplying a lot of the northeast. in general, other countries use gasoline for other social purposes, and therefore put a different tax level on it. so largely the european countries with excellent mass transit systems i minet point out, where people may enjoy global mobility without a personal vehicle, they have used the gasoline and diesel as an opportunity to raise national revenues. and thus they have a higher price.

and so consumers will pay eight or nine dollars equivalent for what we're paying five dollars for. so nearly twice the price. the rest of the world looks at the u.s. with some envy, but when you get into the darker discussions and the deeper discussions at government level, there has to be fundamentalal re sentment. because the u.s. is the major cause of the global high crude oil price. u.s. uses 25% of the world's daily production. and it doesn't produce enough of its own domestic supply. the u.s. has the option of dramatically increasing, so seven to 10 million barrels, nearly a $40% improvement in domestic production. it would go a long way to easing the burden on the entire world

if the u.s. would come to grip with its own demand. there's a resentment of the united states in drawing the world's natural resources into the united states market raises the price for everyone. and that's scene as unfair. >> beyond the price implications of the u.s. position here, linked to the mention of the arab spring. and the quest for grater democracy of the systems of governments in political dynamics with arab spring as occurred, could you address the implications of america's image along the lines of what you've just commented on in terms of that taking 25% as a portion of humanity, we're 5%. so from a perspective we -- and

standard of living five times our share if democracies values are one person, one vote, one person, one moral share. how do you see the implications of these statistics, your statistics have been profound. but they do have implications, including america's image. >> it does feed an economy that is roughly 25% of the global economy. so, while there are only $300 million people in this country relative to the rest of the world, those 300 some odd million people produce 25% of the world's g.n.p. so in my opinion, fairly balanced ratio of energy

consumption versus energy used for production. when you put it on a per cap to basis, it does swing it in a very different direction. that message doesn't get out however. and so the u.s. is seen as an energy hog by much of the rest of the world. and the life style of the u.s. nonetheless is envied because of the creature comforts. i think a great part of what we're seeing in the dissatisfaction and disruption in arab nations is the relative deprivation that more and more people see, feel and understand. and i would largely submit the economic deprivation that people are experienced. i give tom freedman credit who writes about what he considers a 50-year gap. over the last 50 years, nation after nation after nation have seen economic growth and

development, coupled with a variety of other kinds of social improvement, whether it's education, whether it's technology, whether it's infrastructure in which nations have kind of expanded. particularly in asia. done a pretty good job. but with the advanced communications of today's technology, millions and millions of people are discovering how far behind they are. and they're not happy about how far behind they are. now, there are some countries in the middle east that have dealt with this more successfully than others. and we're not seeing the so-called contagion spread to those countries because there's a recognition that that is being addressed by those governments. so i think we really have to capture the importance of the economic value creation of energy production and then make sure that economic value gets dealt with productively in

societies, so that everyone can see a way forward. >> i have several and then you can tchooze the sequence in which you wish to answer them. could you address the possibility of greater u.s. investment in alternative energies and which of these would potentially reduce independence on foreign oil. what are the prospects for development of central asian reserves? and who are the competitors for same? >> in the last chapter, why we hate the oil companies, i lay out a 50-year plan for the nation to reinvent the energy system in the 21st century. it calls for the use of all forms of energy as part of that recreation. it calls for cleaning up

hydrocarbons in ways that waste management technology can take care of. it calls for continued expansion of nuclear with new technology, not the 50, 60-year-old technology we see in today's nuclear plants, including aging nuclear construction in those plants. and it is time for a new generation of nuclear technology. but in addition, massive research and development of natural sources of energy wins solar and tides. i was once asked on a talk show, will we ever have free energy? i thought it was a brilliant question. when we are surrounded by sunlight all day long, wind most nights, and tidal movement that never stops because of the draw of the moon, that all creates a form of passive energy. why don't we turn it active? why don't we turn it into electrons? we don't have the technology

that can do that efficiently and effectively meaning cost wise. but why aren't we really concentrating on the ability to take that variable, natural energy, find ways to make it not variable, but continuous through storage. and as a national effort, or an international effort, really concentrate the research and development. nanotechnology to create the kind of efficient materials that can capture more energy from the sun. devices that can continually generate electricity. there's all kind of opportunity in part of the 21st century redesign that doesn't watch that energy just pass us by. day after day after day. which takes the pressure off hydrocarbons in many respects. takes the pressure off other

risker forms of energy such as nuclear. but delivers affordable, aavailable, sustainable energy to people all over the world. in terms of central asia, the biggest challenge i think will be infrastructure and logistics as well as geo political security fundamentally based on rule of law. central asia's resources are ample. but there are a lot of risks and there are a lot of problems. i think it's going to take time and really concentrated effort for nations that did not understand or use rule of law during the entire post world war period up until recently. and for them to come to grips of the infrastructure and don't forget distances are vast. so the cost of infrastructure has to be dealt with as well. but across borders in some parts of stroll asia, there's not a

real peaceful relationship with neighbors. that adds to the geopolitical risk. and once you start sharing an infrastructure with political systems that are not necessarily compatible, it does present future problems of do we have a sustainable supply system here or what. and i'm sorry, the third question? last five state of the union addresses by the president of the united states, the last two of the previous administration, the first three of this administration are vulnerable to the charge of pandering to some of the more base sentiments among american voters.

with foreign really being a code word and not canada, not mexico, not calling for a divorce from dropping our transportation per say but simply not doing it on arab or islamic oil. how do we get to this particular place, and what are the implications for the head of the united states not being the educator or the informed person in the communicator that we know him to be, as you have been today? >> in the political world, rhetoric means a lot. rhetoric moves peoples emotions. it frames people's thinking. but rhetoric is not a plan.

rhetoric comes and goes. some are better at it than others. but the mood that swings around through rhetoric can be very dangerous. we've seen in american history the rise and fall of popularism over our several hundred year history. and popularism has never gotten us to where we need to as a society. while short-termed primary focus primarily on election or re-election may use rhetoric as a political tactic and tool, it only belittles the society in which they try to lead. and i think it's dangerous. i think that, as you said pandering to certain instincts among people is a very, very dangerous tactic for any public servant to take serving the needs of a democracy. what we need is information, we need data.

and all the information and all the data that i know suggests that partnership, full partnership, integration, accessibility, respect are absolute essentials in today's international community. oil is and has been and will be a global commodity. it's transportable, and it's incredibly valuable. and the dumbest thing, and i use that word deliberately, the dumbest thing this country could do is alienate the source of $105 trillion of value as we look into the future. because not sharing in that value, not participating the economic development, the social development of different parts of the world in a democracy which aspires to lead is simply

shirking our international role of leader. and we have some best case examples to point to in american history that other countries could avoid not making the mistakes we made in our history. remember, we had a civil war. remember, we had apartheid, remember, we still had religious, fundamentalalist where religious don't respect one another but pray to the same god. these are pretty serious issues to come to grips with and pandering to it doesn't help solve the problem. so i'm very worried about alienating any part of the world. we only have one earth to share. and we only have so much time on this earth. and the fact that we would be devicive and somehow suggest that we separate ourselves from a community we know we can't doesn't make any sense at all. no the flip side of that would be the question how do we get from where we were to where we

are in the sense that within the last 10 years, there seemed to have been a consensus that america's strategic was energy and security and having to do with the strategic lines of communication vital waterways from there to this proclaimed, or recommended divorce. was there a particular date and event and incident, action, reaction? or was it the sheer accumulation of bias and rhetoric and partisanship in the american domestic political arena? >> in my view it's a combination of both. and it's the intermingling of several dynamics. including among those dynamics, one i mentioned earlier, the growth of the military industrial complex.

if you don't have guns, you've got nothing to shoot with. if all you have is guns, the answer to every question is shoot. maybe overstating the case a bit, but the reality is the military and industrial complex puts one nation? a position of super power with the willingness and ability to use that power as and when it feels it's necessary. unilaterally, that's one issue. second issue, as the muslim population of the united states has grown, and as new customs and new traditions and new appearances, and new languages have entered into the american society, they have not been all that well received in certain parts of our society. because there is a difference there. we've had trouble with dark skin, african heritage, hispanic

heritage, and now muslim heritage, arab heritage in a multicultural society. so when people say it's simply political correctness, they're wrong. it's part of life. we still have too many families that do not embrace and not teach diversity and multiculturalism to their children as the fact of life. i think we miss out on that. that's another dynamic added to it. and, 9/11 was a particular offense against the territoryal integrity of the united states, perpetrated by a mastermind criminals. but i think it took on meaning beyond the mastermind criminals that did what they did and took on some cultural implications

and dimensions where in its crigs to the resolution of that and the lack of the attention and focus on diversity and mull till -- have prevented us from finding, i think, the more common sense and pragmatic solutions in that we share one sky, we share one earth. and we ought to share the benefits of all the cultures, not just in our own society but around the world. and take of the criminals and treat them the way criminals need to be treated. >> where can one go to find out more information about your organization? >> citizens for affordable energy is a 501 c 3 foundation. it is not a lobbying organization. it is nonpartisan. it is funded only by consumers of energy.

producers of energy are not permitted to make contributions to our foundation. in order for us to appropriately use the word affordable. producers of energy want profitable energy. that may or may not be affordable. consumer energy wants affordable energy which means they can pay for it. wile we respect producers of energy of all kinds, we choose not to take any of their money which enables us to speak freely and where ever we go without being attributed to the voice of an energy producer of any kind of energy. citizens for affordable energy has a website which is quite simply citizens for affordable energy.org. we invite members, we invite contact. we have quite a bit of information on the web. we invite you to sign up. it's all free. there's no charge. you can be a member of no

charge. and we welcome your membership because we do believe that grass roots is the solution for virtually all of our problems and by informing grass roots participants across the nation of who we are, what we stand for, the fact that we are nonpartisan and non-funded by energy companies i think puts us in a position to try to promote smart, practical, pragmatic, non-political solutions for a future energy system. also, you can reed the book "why we hate the oil company, straight talk from an energy insider." it will direct you to that website in the last chapter as well. thank you. >> the question is do you have any plans, intentions to inject your rhetoric into the forthcoming rhetoric of the coming presidential campaign? >> if invited to give talks by

candidates in different parts of the nation, with respect to the nonpartisan energy items we're talking about, of course i'd take any opportunity i can to address our populations or organizations on these issues. as a candidate, no. i have a serious objection to the funding of political campaigns in the united states. and if the current political system or the paid political system continues, i won't be a party to it. >> in bringing this to a close, several related questions. one is 2011 already has proven to be an extraordinary year, and not just in the united states, but globally and interregionally, regionally and nationally in many parts of the globe.

between now and autumn will be the 10th anniversary of september 11 and all the emotionality and focus of that particular event. in september, the same month, will be the convening of the united nations assembly where there is a movement where it will come to fruition remains to be seen. where by the united nations general assembly will announce its recognition of an independent state of palestine, living in stability, peace and security adjacent to the state of israel. it has already been an emotional moment in terms of what occurred in the past week after a 10 year effort, but there are other moves afoot that also have their implications. one is that while we've been speaking and meeting here, george mitchell, the president's envoy for the middle east peace process of which there really

isn't a process, there's a diplomatic process has tended his resignation in the last hour. this year is also, indeed next week, will be the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the -- but it's also the 40th anniversary of the united arab emirate, which as an example of political engineering stands up as the single, longest and most successful example of arab political cooperation, coordination and integration in modern history. it so happens that we have tried to have a confederation twice in the united states. each time with 13 members. and each time it failed. so this is a part of the world

for which we can learn a lot, more than just matters of oil and gas. more than just aspects of the peoples there are being objects, but also actors. and more than these countries and cultures being blessed with mountains of money in a number of case, as opposed to also part of the triad of jewish, christian, islamic culture and contributions to world civilization. what you've done today though, is to keep us focused on this light source in terms of humanities well being. and economic growth. we're much in your debt sir, thank you. >> thank you. [applause]

>> next, live, your calls and comments on "washington journal." then "news makers." after that, the senate hearing with oil company executives on tax exceptions for those companies. >> what series of choice does they make to become terrorists? to kill hundreds of thousands of other people? >> in his new book, richard miniter looks at the architect of the 9/11 attacks. >> this is a guy that really mattered. understanding him is about understanding the future of the war on terror. now that bin laden is dead, this is what we have to fear, these terrorists entrepreneurs like him. >> inside the mind of a terrorist, tonight on c-span's qu & a. you can also download a podcast, one of our many signature one of our many signature programs available online.